LL.M.

LL.M.

Law / LL.M.

Law / LL.M.

Copyright is essentially the right of the rightsholder of an original work to prohibit others from making or distributing unauthorised copies of his or her work. More specifically for this dissertation, when an end user deals with digital content, one of the aims of copyright becomes the balancing of the conflicting interests in ‘exclusivity’ on the one hand, and in ‘access to information’ on the other. Exclusivity is achieved by the rightsholders through technological protection measures to protect their commercial interests. Access to information is achieved where works are available to the general public without payment and technological protection measures and where the digital content is not directly marketed for commercial gain. Exclusivity and access to information are two conflicting cultures surrounding copyright in the digital era. It is submitted that unless we find a socio-economic-legal way for the dynamic coexistence of these two conflicting cultures by means of fair dealing, the culture of exclusivity will eventually dominate fair access to information. The transient nature of digital content means that rightsholders have little or no control over their works once the end user has obtained a legal digital copy of the work. The right ‘to prohibit’ end users from copying and distributing unauthorised copies is, therefore, largely meaningless unless a legal or other solution can be found to discourage end users from the unauthorised reproduction and distribution of unauthorised copies of the work. Currently, technological protection measures are used to manage such digital rights because legal permissions within the doctrine of fair dealing for works in printed (analogue) format are inadequate. It is, however, submitted that a legal solution to discourage end users from copying and distributing unauthorised copies rests on two pillars. Firstly, the solution must be embedded in state-of-the-art digital rights management systems and secondly the business model used by publishers, and academic publishers in particular, should change fundamentally from a business-to-consumer model to a business-to-business model. Empirical evidence shows that the printing of e-content will continue to be relevant far into the future. Therefore, the management of fair dealing to allow for the printing of digital content will become increasingly important at educational institutions that use e-books as prescribed course material. It is submitted that although the origination cost of print editions and e-books correspond, the relatively high retail price of e-books appears to be based on the fact that academic publishers of digital content do not have the legal or digital rights management tools to manage the challenges arising from the fair dealing doctrine. The observation that academic publishers are reluctant to grant collecting societies mandates to manage the distribution of digital content, and/or the right to manage the authorised reproduction (printing) of the digital content, supports this hypothesis. Ultimately, with technologies at our disposal, the fair use of content in digital and print format can be achieved because it should simply be cheaper to comply with copyright laws than to make unauthorised digital or printed copies of content that our society desperately needs to make South Africa a winning nation. / Mercantile Law / LL. M.

This work is concerned with an analysis of the copyright protection of musical works. Musical works form part of the categories of works protected under copyright law. It would be easy to dismiss musical works as not warranting a serious study, as would for example, be warranted for “industrial property” rights such as patents and geographical indicators, or more “serious” copyrights such as architectural works and computer software. Such a perspective would however, not be cognisant of the significant contribution that the music industry, as part of the broader cultural and creative industries makes to the global economy. It has, for example, been shown that in 2013, the global cultural and creative industries contributed some US$2,250b, employing some 29,5 million people, with the music industry being one of the top three employers and with its revenues exceeding those of radio.1 A single successful musician can earn in excess of US$100m per annum,2 making the industry ripe for litigious claims. For this reason therefore a consideration of the legal rules that apply to the protection of musical works is crucial. There is currently no clear exposition and systematic analysis of the legal principles applicable to the field of music copyright and no work devoted to the in-depth delineation of the rights and sub-rights relating to musical copyright protection. This study seeks to address this research and knowledge gap by providing a historical and contextual analysis of the protection of musical works. The aim is to provide a complete picture of the milieu of music copyright protection to enable the reader to feel empowered in dealing with the subject-matter. This the writer does by mapping the historical development of music copyright protection in particular from eighteenth century England when the first copyright legislation was enacted, until the enactment of the British Copyright Act of 1911, which signalled the emergence of the “common law” copyright system. The writer then shows how this enactment shaped the development of modern music copyright law, and concludes by presenting a contextual consideration of the current South African law of music copyright and highlighting the challenges it is faced with. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

A study is done on the protection of sound recordings in the decentralized peer-to-peer (DP2P) file sharing in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. This study reveals that because sound recordings have unique features different from other copyright works, the illegal sharing of sound recordings can ordinarily be filtered, identified, and detected by the Internet service providers (ISPs) before granting access to users and without infringing the users‟ right to privacy. However, the ISPs have failed in this regard, hence, they are strictly held liable under the contributory, vicarious and inducing infringements notwithstanding the statutory law which prohibits ISPs from monitoring, and intercepting their networks. In fact and law, the terms filtering, identifying and detecting on the one hand and monitoring and intercepting on the other hand are different in relation to sound recordings and as such ISPs are not prohibited from filtering, identifying and detecting illegal sound recordings on their networks, thus, ISPs are not protected under the limitation law as it is generally believed. However, several recommendations are made for reform, inter alia: a review of the limitation law to include the terms filtering, identifying and detecting in pursuance of the terms monitoring, and intercepting, if the intention of the legislators was meant to include the latter terms; protection of access right in digital sound recordings, protection of the neighbouring rights of ISPs in the digital world, imposing levies on all recording equipment, the insurability of sound recordings and ISPs‟ signals, and bandwidth. / Mercentile Law / LL. M. (Mercantile Law)

A study is done on the protection of sound recordings in the decentralized peer-to-peer (DP2P) file sharing in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa. This study reveals that because sound recordings have unique features different from other copyright works, the illegal sharing of sound recordings can ordinarily be filtered, identified, and detected by the Internet service providers (ISPs) before granting access to users and without infringing the users‟ right to privacy. However, the ISPs have failed in this regard, hence, they are strictly held liable under the contributory, vicarious and inducing infringements notwithstanding the statutory law which prohibits ISPs from monitoring, and intercepting their networks. In fact and law, the terms filtering, identifying and detecting on the one hand and monitoring and intercepting on the other hand are different in relation to sound recordings and as such ISPs are not prohibited from filtering, identifying and detecting illegal sound recordings on their networks, thus, ISPs are not protected under the limitation law as it is generally believed. However, several recommendations are made for reform, inter alia: a review of the limitation law to include the terms filtering, identifying and detecting in pursuance of the terms monitoring, and intercepting, if the intention of the legislators was meant to include the latter terms; protection of access right in digital sound recordings, protection of the neighbouring rights of ISPs in the digital world, imposing levies on all recording equipment, the insurability of sound recordings and ISPs‟ signals, and bandwidth. / Mercentile Law / LL. M. (Mercantile Law)